Well you have a close match from "Braithwaite" from Yorkshire. Now this
name is a direct English rendition of Breatvedt, a farm name near Oslo which
happens to be just a few kilometers from the Nordtvedt farm from which my
ancestral line comes from.

The Yorkshire family no doubt took their name from a hamlet in Yorkshire
once sonamed by Scandinavian settlers 1200 years ago.

But you can only squeeze so much information out of a mutation of 392 to 12
from 11. Much detective work is still needed to figure out when and where
this particular case of the mutation to 12 occured. I am sure it has
occured a number of times within the I1a-N or I1a-uN I suspect you may be
trying to read too much into a mutation here and there in your haplotype.

> Oh, I don't disagree with your reply at all. And that
> is precisely the part I find puzzling. It is a rare
> mutation. Rare mutations are, well, rare and therefore
> extremely localized and almost certainly only occurred
> once.
>
> The problem I'm having can be stated thus:
>
> 1. The closest Norse entries I can find most likely
> diverged from my branch at least a thousand years
> prior to the known and dated archaeological events
> which I believe may be associated with the 392:12
> marker in Ireland. (The Ulstermen, during the wars
> over the High King, had Norse allies who settled
> there.)
>
> I can't account for that time at all - there should be
> intermediate entries with that marker in areas
> associated with the Nordic trading empire (as far east
> as Kiev, some say Moscow, and as far south as Egypt -
> those guys made the Romans look like amateurs).
>
> 2. ySearch turns up people who are genetically closer
> than anyone I have found with the 392:12 mutation.
> Someone cannot be both a more recent and a more
> distant cousin at the same time. The mathematics of
> mutation rates produces a very different result from
> the mathematics of inheritance and I can't get the two
> to reconcile.
>
> 3. The few close genetic matches with the marker show
> up on known trading areas of the Norse, but so far
> nowhere on any on the raiding areas, so my deduction
> would have to be that this was a somewhat aristocratic
> trading family who could afford to go around buying
> and selling kingdoms.
>
> How on Earth do you go about hiding an entire town of
> fanatically insular, thousand-year anachronistic,
> hyper-rich merchants in the middle of Norway? Between
> the ancient records, the archaeological digs and the
> surviving legends of the time, you'd think that
> something like that would stick out a mile, even
> assuming the town doesn't still exist. (And if it did,
> it really WOULD stick out a mile - that kind of
> history stays with a place.)
>
> In summary, I can produce a perfectly plausible
> history by genetic distance, genetic markers or by
> archaeology, but I cannot produce a self-consistant or
> reliable history with any two of those, and I cannot
> produce any history at all by all three.
>
> Now, I don't expect to find my
> however-many-great-grandfather's grave with testable
> DNA, tafl board and a personal diary. I do expect to
> be able to find intermediate data points that make
> sense - you couldn't do much in the way of genealogy
> otherwise! - and I would like to be able to put
> together a plausible hypothesis that isn't totally
> invalidated by what I already know.
>
> It irks me to no end that I cannot produce even a hint
> of a theory - of when/where the family name came from,
> of when the Norse ancestors came over, where they
> landed or where they came from, who I am related to
> (across surnames), how and when, and how the marker in
> question is both unmistakably ancient (the maximum
> genetic stance of a person who carries the same
> mutation suggests it is a paleolithic mutation) and so
> rare at the same time, without dying out.
>
> The marker isn't the cause of all my problems, but it
> isn't consistant with any of the more obvious
> solutions to any of them, and that is why it is so
> frustrating.
>
> --- Ken Nordtvedt <> wrote:
>
>> Why are you so upset by a measly 12 at 392?
>> Mutations happen. The rest of
>> your haplotype looks like a quite normal Norwegian
>> type (your 464 values) of
>> I1a-ultra-Norse.
>>
>> I queried the entire SMGF database. 8 out of 347
>> Norse I1a haplotypes had
>> 12 at 392. It's a rather rare mutation, but it had
>> to happen to somebodies.
>>
>> Ken
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Jonathan Day" <>
>> To: "RICHARD M PAYTON" <>
>> Cc: <>
>> Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2007 6:32 PM
>> Subject: Re: [DNA] Worth getting yet more extras?
>>
>>
>> > Richard,
>> >
>> > Thanks for the offer of help. At this point,
>> without
>> > help I am well and truly stuck. On Ysearch, I'm
>> listed
>> > as 3M9XT. I'm listed as I1a. The first few markers
>> are
>> > as follows:
>> >
>> > 393 13
>> > 390 23
>> > 19 14
>> > 391 10
>> > 385a 14
>> > 385b 15
>> > 426 11
>> > 388 14
>> > 439 11
>> > 381-1 12
>> > 392 12
>> > 389-2 28
>> > 458 15
>> > 459a 8
>> > 459b 9
>> > 455 8
>> >
>> > The 392 value is the first of the weird markers -
>> a
>> > check on FTDNA and YSearch show that virtually all
>> > I1a's who are even remotely close have a value of
>> 11,
>> > whereas my value of 12 seems to be definitely
>> unusual.
>> >
>> > What makes it more unusual is that those who are
>> I1as
>> > who have a value of 12 in that position are in
>> > geographically dislocated regions and have no
>> common
>> > surname. Ok, maybe that's not too bad - I1a is
>> > associated with the Norse and the one thing the
>> Norse
>> > are associated with is travelling.
>> >
>> > Problem is, not a single I1a in Norway that I can
>> find
>> > has a value of 12 at 392. Unless the Norseman in
>> > question mutated in transit, I can't explain the
>> > rarity, dispersion and lack of an origin.
>> >
>> > It gets more complicated when I look at the table
>> for
>> > the Day DNA Project. I have a 23 at 390, whereas
>> the
>> > few other Days who are classed as Is have values
>> of 22
>> > or 24. At 385a, I have a 14, whereas all other
>> Days in
>> > the project have a 13. At 392, I have a 12 but all
>> > other Days have an 11.
>> >
>> > Since I'm a distance of 1 from people with other
>> > surnames, I would venture to guess I'm essentially
>> > unrelated to all these other Day families.
>> >
>> > Another problem is that the more markers I look
>> at,
>> > the greater the genetic distance becomes. At 37
>> > markers, there is nobody closer than 3. At 57
>> markers,
>> > the closest is 12 and the median is closer to 20.
>> This
>> > is for all surnames and all regions.
>> >
>> > It does not help that those who have tested up to
>> 37
>> > markers and share the strange marker values are a
>> > greater genetic distance than those who have
>> tested
>> > the same number of markers but do NOT share those
>> > markers.
>> >
>> > Correct me if I'm wrong on this, but I seem to
>> recall
>> > mention of markers reverting to earlier values.
>> That
>> > might be what has happened here, but if that
>> really is
>> > the case, I'm totally stuck on how I make use of
>> the
>> > information I have.
>> >
>> > This leads back to the original question, of
>> whether
>> > further testing is going to be of any value. At
>> > present, the data I have is telling me nothing on
>> the
>> > genealogical timeframe and is giving me
>> conflicting
>> > answers over a longer timeframe. It seems to me
>> that I
>> > need something more to break one of these logjams,
>> but
>> > what is the more that I need?
>> >
>> > One thing I've considered is getting in touch with
>> > known very distant relatives who are also directly
>> > descended on the male line to the Day family, in
>> the
>> > hope that I can isolate whatever has changed in
>> the
>> > past 150 years. That might cover one or two
>> markers,
>> > but it's not going to explain away ten to twenty,
>> and
>> > I don't have reliable family history data further
>> > sideways than that.
>> >
>> > (The family tree, as it is known, doesn't go back
>> very
>> > far and is mostly concerned with how multiple
>> families
>> > are interrelated to mine. Interesting for
>> conventional
>> > genealogists but not so helpful when studying
>> genetic
>> > family history.)
>> >
>> > Jonathan
>> >
>> > --- RICHARD M PAYTON <>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Jonathan: I never saw a response to your e-mail
>> on
>> >> GENEALOGY-DNA.
>> >>
>> >> There is plenty of expertise on the list to help,
>> >> but I think they will need
>> >> more information.
>> >>
>> >> You say you have on weird marker. What is that
>> >> marker and what is the weird
>> >> value?
>> >>
>> >> What haplogroup has FTDNA assigned you to? The
>> deep
>> >> SNP test is of far more
>> >> value in some haplogroups (with lots of
>> downstream
>> >> diversity) than others.
>> >>
>> >> If you have your results on Ysearch, you might
>> sent
>> >> your Ysearch id to the
>> >> list. Plenty of people will take a look at your
>> >> haplotype and weigh in if
>> >> you do that.
>> >>
>> >> I am no expert, but if you tell me your
>> haplogroup
>> >> and what is weird about
>> >> your weird marker, I will take a stab.
>> >>
>> >> Richard Payton
>> >> Payton/Peyton Surname Y-DNA Project
>> >> Patton Surname Y-DNA Project
>> >> Denver
>> >>
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From:
>> >> [mailto:] On
>> >> Behalf Of Jonathan Day
>> >> Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 10:32 PM
>> >> To:
>> >> Subject: [DNA] Worth getting yet more extras?
>> >>
>> >> Hi,
>>
> === message truncated ===
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
> Don't get soaked. Take a quick peak at the forecast
> with the Yahoo! Search weather shortcut.
> http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#loc_weather
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
> quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>